Vinod K. Sharma, J.
C.M. No. 11638-C of 2003.
1. This is an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the restoration of C.M. No. 6009-C of 2002 dismissed in default on 22.8.2003.
2. Notice of the application was given to the respondents. In spite of service, no body has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents. Thus, the averments made in the application are not opposed.
For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the order dated 22.8.2003 is recalled and Civil Misc. No. 6009-C of 2002 is restored to its original number. The application stands allowed.
C.M. No. 6009-C of 2002.
3.This is an application under Order 41 Rule 19 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for readmission of the appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application which are not opposed as nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of service, this application is allowed and the regular second appeal is ordered to be restored to its original number.
C.M. stands allowed.
R.S.A. No. 2674 of 1979.
4. Present appeal has been filed against the judgments and decrees passed by the learned courts below vide which the suit for possession filed by the appellant was or dered to be dismissed being time barred and also by holding that the defendant-respon-dents have become owners of the property by way of adverse possession.
5. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation. The only plea taken by the appellant was that Public Wakfs (Extension of Limitation) Punjab Amendment Act, 24 of 1976 was passed under which the appellant was entitled to maintain the suit till 31.12.1976 and as the suit was filed on 2.1.1975 the same was to be treated to be within limitation.
6. This matter was considered and the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Act were to apply only to those cases which came to the knowledge of the Punjab Wakf Board subsequently. However, in the present case on application (appreciation?) of evidence it was proved on record that illegal possession of the defendant-respondents had come to the notice of the Wakf Board in the year 1961 and therefore, the suit filed beyond 5 years was beyond limitation and hostile possession of the defendant-respondents had matured into ownership right.
7. The appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court was also dismissed and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court was affirmed in view of the admission made in the cross-examination that the Wakf Board had come to know about the illegal possession in the year 1961.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that in view of the new Act there was no limitation and therefore, the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the following question of law arise in the present appeal:
1. Whether any limitation is prescribed for filing a suit for possession by the Wakf Board?
9. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in view of Section 107 of the Punjab Wakf Act, 1995 as no limitation is prescribed the impugned judgments and decrees be set aside. This contention cannot be accepted as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sardar Khan and Ors. v. Syed Najmul Hasan (Seth) and Ors. : AIR2007SC1447 has laid down that the operation of the Act is prospective in nature and not retrospective.
10. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.